Posted
by
timothy
on Saturday May 09, 2015 @06:26PM
from the who-exactly-is-being-protected? dept.

According to the Austin American-Statesman, it's not just ride-sharing companies like Uber drawing attention from regulators, at least in Texas, but also a similar service that's hauling goods rather than people. In a letter demanding that Austin-based Burrocease its phone-coordinated delivery service, Texas Department of Motor Vehicles
director of enforcement William P. Harbeson says that "[a]nyone moving household goods in a pick-up truck or other type or size of vehicle for hire is required to register" with the Department, "and show proof of insurance in the amounts required by law." According to the letter, this includes not just professional or even regular haulers, but also people moving a piece of furniture bought at a garage sale for pay; considering the number of people offering that kind of service on Austin's Craigslist, or in the parking lot of home supply stores like Home Depot, it seems like a regulation that will put a dent in the wallet of quite a few people. Burro, for its part, says its providers "are backed by $1M in insurance" — more than can be said for one of the obvious substitutes, which is relying on friends or acquaintances with a roof-rack and some bungie cords.

alot of the apps ones have insurance gaps that lead to the drivers being not covered at all at times / they must use there own insurance as primary that likely will not cover them at all for that kind of work.

alot of the apps ones have insurance gaps that lead to the drivers being not covered at all at times / they must use there own insurance as primary that likely will not cover them at all for that kind of work.

Or even if they have insurance, if the driver does not have a CDL, then the insurance won't pay.

I don't know if a CDL is a qualifier or not but almost all non commercial insurance policies have a disclaimer stating they will not cover any commercial use of the vehicle. Pizza delivery drivers run into this all the time. They either need a special rider policy for their car or pretend the 20 pizzas in the back are there because he forgot to put them in the fridge.

Texas isn't the only state that has laws like this one either. The roots of it is in federal law. Generally anything with a gross vehicle weig

I have a couch, you have a pickup. Does it matter if I've known you for 20 years or if I give you $20?

Sure it does. If you give him $20, he is now a commercial carrier. Though it is very unlikely anybody would ever bust someone for helping you move once. The real issue here is the guys on craigslist who are offering commercial to the public moving services, or the Burro corporation which is doing the same thing via an app.

Sure it does. If you give him $20, he is now a commercial carrier. Though it is very unlikely anybody would ever bust someone for helping you move once. The real issue here is the guys on craigslist who are offering commercial to the public moving services, or the Burro corporation which is doing the same thing via an app.

What about if you show them the fuel gauge and tell them to replenish only the amount of the fuel they used for the move. Are you still a commercial carrier? Technically, you'd be losing out on the move anyway, since fuel cost doesn't take into account the wear and tear on the vehicle, the insurance, or any other miscellaneous costs.

And also, assuming that you wouldn't make a habit of helping your friends move, and that this is only a one time thing, and only a one-time reimbursement of the fuel used, would

Sure it does. If you give him $20, he is now a commercial carrier. Though it is very unlikely anybody would ever bust someone for helping you move once. The real issue here is the guys on craigslist who are offering commercial to the public moving services, or the Burro corporation which is doing the same thing via an app.

What about if you show them the fuel gauge and tell them to replenish only the amount of the fuel they used for the move. Are you still a commercial carrier? Technically, you'd be losing out on the move anyway, since fuel cost doesn't take into account the wear and tear on the vehicle, the insurance, or any other miscellaneous costs.

And also, assuming that you wouldn't make a habit of helping your friends move, and that this is only a one time thing, and only a one-time reimbursement of the fuel used, would you still be considered a commercial carrier then?

I am not familiar with the USDOT rules and regulations, but if this were an airplane, and you accepted money to reimburse fuel, it would definitely be considered commercial. I would guess that USDOT rules are in line with the FAA rules.

This is false. A pilot with a private (non-commercial) license may fly a passenger who reimburses them for the expenses of the flight, including plane rental and fuel. It doesn't become commercial until they make a profit.

This is false. A pilot with a private (non-commercial) license may fly a passenger who reimburses them for the expenses of the flight, including plane rental and fuel. It doesn't become commercial until they make a profit.K/blockquote>

FALSE.

They may only reimburse you THEIR SHARE of the costs.

The FAA is very clear on this. There are several conditions that must be true for it to be OK to carry a passenger and get paid without a commercial license.

This is false. A pilot with a private (non-commercial) license may fly a passenger who reimburses them for the expenses of the flight, including plane rental and fuel. It doesn't become commercial until they make a profit.

No, this is false.
The costs can be shared equally, but if you exceed an equal share, it becomes commercial. There have even been some cases around people publicly advertising that they were going to place X and willing to share costs. The FAA considered that offering services publicly and declared it commercial.
Being profitable is not the condition for commercial use. Plenty of for-profit businesses don't make a profit. That doesn't mean they don't have to be licensed.

I admit to being less than sympathetic to people who can't be bothered to be here legally, but if they are here legally, then what is to stop them from offering labor hire with the proper insurance and licensing? If we want to argue that Mexicans shouldn't have to have proper insurance and licensing, then that should apply to the existing businesses as well. I'm sure they would appreciate it, as it would save them a lot of money and allow them to be more competitive. On the other hand, we will have to bear

Once you make it a business transaction yes it should. If it's just a friend that you give some cash that's not a business. But if it's a friend you pay through an Internet service to pick your stuff up then it's a business transaction regardless if they're a friend or not. Likewise if you had a friend that can do it you probably wouldn't download an app and hire them through that.

The big part is someone needs to absorb the risk involved in this commercial transaction.
I don't know all the details but am pretty sure the driver or the truck's insurance does not cover commercial use based on a private use insurance premium.

Because there are more risks than simply damage to the customer's furniture. If you are hauling stuff on a commercial basis without declaring it to the company insuring your vehicle you will likely find yourself totally naked in the event you have an accident (remember that clause in your policy that says no commercial activities?). So the nice little old lady that you ran over won't be able to get her medical bills covered by you unless she takes the time and effort to bring you to court. Unles you just

my stuff on your truck shouldnt matter if you hit a little old lady or not. thats on you. if you dont have the insurance to cover that, thats on you. there is no reason that because you have my dresser in your pickup bed that it should somehow change anything.

The purpose of insurance companies is to make a profit. If they can find a way to avoid paying out - some excuse, however flimsy - it is their duty to the shareholders to exploit it.

Indeed. And the purpose of charging more for commercial insurance is to make a profit on commercial insurance. Fix commercial and non-commercial rates to be the same and commercial insurance becomes loss-making, and the lost profits are taken from non-commercial insurees instead.

Yes, it's "on you" (the driver/truck owner) but that doesn't help the little old lady when his non-commercial insurance refuses to pay because at the time of the accident he was engaged in commercial activity against the terms of his insurance policy. And that clause is there because a commercial driver does many more miles (also in a more loaded vehicle, with longer braking etc.) and thus has a much higher risk of accident in a given time period than a non-commercial one, thus the premium should be and is

And that is why the state seems to be going after the people with the trucks and not you who hired them.

And yes, it does magically change things. You share a liability vicariously when you hire someone to do work and do not properly supervise them. It's more or less the same as hiring a handyman to fix a leaky roof. If he falls and knocks a ladder down that crashes through a neighbor's fence and window, you can be held accountable for not only the damage to the neighbor's property but injury to the handym

my stuff on your truck shouldnt matter if you hit a little old lady or not. thats on you. if you dont have the insurance to cover that, thats on you. there is no reason that because you have my dresser in your pickup bed that it should somehow change anything.

As another poster says, it's about sharing the risk.

Commercial drivers (typically) do more miles than domestic drivers, so they are likely to have a higher incidence of events resulting in claims. This is why commercial insurance is more expensive than domestic insurance. You could lobby the government to make it illegal for insurers to differentiate between commercial and non-commercial use, but what happens then? The risk gets spread across everybody -- that's what. Insurance premiums go up for non-commer

You say that until one of these guys runs into your vehicle and you get nothing because he's not running a proper business. A lot of rules seem stupid when everything runs smoothly but they aren't there for when things run smoothly.

An unlicensed, uninsured driver hauling furniture down the interstate is not a proper business. If the cargo falls onto my vehicle, they keep driving. If caught by police, "no hablo ingles" will be their only response. No jail, no fines, free to go, and I still have a damaged vehicle to deal with. The current rules are not working, either.

Nonsense. Debris on the highway is major issue taken seriously by the police (particularly if the police in question are the Highway Patrol). And if someone responds to the police with "no hablo inglés" after fleeing an accident, guess what happens next? No, they're not waved on. They're hauled into a police station while immigration and/or homeland security check they're not illegals.

It doesn't matter who they're going after. If this law is regularly violated by reasonable people just going about their business, then it's a bad law. Full stop.

Now, if they rewrite this law in such a way that there is a clear distinction between you paying for your buddy's gas and you paying for a for-hire service, then fine: enforce away. Until then, they should enforce this law for everyone or no one.

Aside: I think you should be able to challenge laws that are selectively enforced or not enforced at all

You're right: I didn't phrase my first statement well. Change it to "reasonable people _harmlessly_ going about their business". Lead paint is quite dangerous. Putting a table in the back of a pickup truck is not.

That said, I don't think that lead paint is a good way to make your case. Lead paint has been banned in the US since 1978 (with a few legally-defined exceptions), and my understanding is that the law has been uniformly enforced. Are you implying that people still buy lead paint and are thereby viol

Putting an improperly secured table in the back of a pickup truck which may or may not be properly maintained with adequate brakes, may not have the load properly distributed, may be overloaded, and may not have a driver trained to deal with that, is dangerous. To the driver and, more importantly, to other road users. Now on ordinary person moving a friend's table will do that once a year, if that. Little aggregate risk. But someone doing it off-the-books commercially from the lot at Home Depot might make t

Nice try, I'm pretty darn certain this isn't what they're going after, paying a buddy gas money to haul your couch. What they're going after is, people who are "your buddy" for hire and make a living off of hauling shit around without the proper licensing and quite likely half of it is under the table...

Thanks for the common sense here... I totally agree.

It's the same thing with Uber and ride sharing services, no authority cares if you ride-share with a friend, co-worker or neighbor, the problem is when apps tries to organize these kinds of "friend"-services, which makes them a commercial enterprise that doesn't honor regulation.

Another case of something being perfectly legal if done for free (your friends helping you move or giving someone a ride) or by yourself (ripping your own[ed] media, or recording television services you subscribe to), but the moment money changes hands, everyone wants a cut. Utterly sickening. I guess they better crack down on paying anyone with beer/food as well.

And yes, I am saying that if I can record my own television that I subscribe to (or even free ota stuff), surely I should be able to download said content by outsourcing the capturing/editing-out-of-commercials to the internet at large.

You can actually, its the UPLOAD that gets you. Sony v Universal (and subsequent rulings) is quite clear, Backups are backups, it doesnt matter where they came from as long as you dont share them. If you direct download them you are in the clear 100%, if you use a sharing service like a torrent, the water gets a lot muddier.

I guess they better crack down on paying anyone with beer/food as well.

If it really is pay - or in legal terms, "consideration" - then it is covered by this law exactly the same as money. What you do with your friends is neither pay nor consideration. You give them beer and sandwiches when they help you out for free.

If you claim you don't get the distinction, I believe you are being intentionally obtuse. A judge or magistrate would not be so.

So pay your friend for the companionship while he happens to haul your new sofa. You know how it is. If you buy her a fancy meal for $100. you may be her lover but if you hand her $100. you are a John and she is a hooker. Sometimes law is composed by idiots.

Another case of something being perfectly legal if done for free (your friends helping you move or giving someone a ride) . . . . but the moment money changes hands, everyone wants a cut.

It doesn't just have to do with "money changing hands" -- it has to do with the difference between "your friends" (i.e., people you know and probably have some sort of trust/relationship with) vs. asking some random 3rd party dude whom you've never met before to take your stuff and trust it with him in his truck.

Obviously you must have never had to deal with a dispute or error involving professional movers, or you've never had a package lost or damaged by a 3rd-party courier or whatever.

The laws are not against giving food to poor people. The laws are against distributing food by unlicensed vendors, or against distributing food that is not packaged, etc. The effect is the same but the difference is that the people writing these laws are deluding themselves into thinking that they are not doing exactly what they are doing.

didn't even bother to read the summary let alone TFA did you? This is about insurance, keeping track of who has it and making sure they're in a position to pay. $1 mil is small potatoes if you get hit by an uninsured driver and injured. A bad accident can result in decades of medical bills and with America's screwed up health care system can run way past that.

It still depends. There are almost certainly moves being done for free which shouldn't be done in the way they're being done but it's hard to catch them but if you funnel it all through an Internet business it's easy to find violations.

Exactly. Too many people say that they're "trying to take our freedoms away". Many things which are common practice are against the law, and there's often a tacit acceptance of this in the form of "if you're too small and innoccuous to get caught, it's OK". Organise that illegal practice, though, and you're definitely big enough to get hit with enforcement.

Now to all those people who say that the tacit acceptance of these practices on the small scale implies that it's OK on the big scale, I want you to thin

"Not acceptance of everyone, but enforcement against everyone."... or perhaps it would result in enough outrage that laws that forbid harmless practices would be undone, resulting in enforcement against no-one.

...people can have perfectly fine private systems to deal with criminals, with murder, theft, breaches of contract and any type of harm.

Right. It's called vigilante justice. It doesn't require proof, because who do you have to prove it to? That means that when we come and rape your mother and your dog and then rip your balls off with a pair of pliers, you can't do anything about it because it was justice for some crime. No need to involve authorities, right?

It is utterly sickening, because it means you are not actually the owner of the property that you are trying to operate.

Talking of sickening, let's go back to the GP's example of lemonade. If I take a glass of home-made lemonade from a friend, I know that I'm taking something that has been made in a kitchen that's not commercial grade. There is a risk involved, and because he/she's a friend, I can assess that risk. When I buy a bottle of lemonade from a stranger on the internet, how do I assess that risk? From a few reviews on a website? All I know is that he/she hasn't poisoned anyone yet. I do not know whether the kitchen

As a former (1992-99 Boston MA USA) regulator, I smile. Regulator jobs were created because the average person didn't have access to information and it was worth it to pay taxes to hire people to regulate the service providers. The other two parts of the job were raising income for the state and protecting the commercial services / upstream market, but from Upton Sinclair times the protection of the consumer was the regulatory driver.

Protecting the consumer ordering the service is disrupted. The reputation (likes/dislikes/negative feedback) model does the equivalent of what Ebay did to print journalism. Print news made 1/3 from subscriptions, 1/3 from ads, and 1/3 from classified (my great grandparents-parents worked in newspaper market).

The newspapers were slow to embrace online classifieds because it wasn't in the marketplace they had cornered.... and they lost it. Regulators are now like new editors, they know the feedback system protects consumers, and they also know that's 1/3 of their jobs. I suspect most regulators are less adept than news editors.

Screw protecting the consumer and their maybe $1000 worth of crap in the back of a pickup. What I want to know is that _I'm_ protected from half assed and overworked driver with no insurance moving shit on their days off instead of resting thanks to America's race to the bottom economy.

Protecting the consumer ordering the service is disrupted. The reputation (likes/dislikes/negative feedback) model does the equivalent of what Ebay did to print journalism. Print news made 1/3 from subscriptions, 1/3 from ads, and 1/3 from classified (my great grandparents-parents worked in newspaper market).

This is only part of the job, though. Reputation only mitigates against negative outcomes that are common occurences (eg a trader selling defective goods, out-of-date foodstuffs etc) but does nothing to deal with low-occurence, high-cost accidents. A guy who does ten thousand driving jobs without incident will not have a single review commenting on his lack of insurance, so there's no protection to ensure that the guy whose driver actually has an accident is properly insured. Furthermore, as online reputati

Feh, the meat packing regulations supposedly inspired by Sinclair were created at the behest of the meat packing industry to reassure the overseas market. Actually protecting anyone wasn't the goal.

Are you familiar with Sugar? It cost twice as much to import it to the USA than any other place and this has been since the 1700'sIt's one reason were killing ourself with corn syrup. - came across that when it was mentioned now we can get Sugar from Cuba.

We can't afford it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... [wikipedia.org] and I'm one of those that seek out Mexican Coca-Cola in ethnic groceries because they prefer the taste compared to Coca-Cola in the U.S. which is made with HFCS.

great, until you hit a pothole and kill the guy in the car behind you on the highway

i don't know about regulating hauling, but i wouldn't mind seeing the police pull over and arrest some of the flimsy crap i've seen barely secured to trucks and SUVs going 70 in the highway

I'm all for sensible precautions, but is this really a problem?

We can imagine all sorts of things happening and require enormous levels of bureaucratic process and safety procedure for just about everything, but without evidence of likelihood that'll just be wasted effort.

In the manner of Bruce Schneier's movie plot security [google.com], this is "movie plot safety". We *imagine* what *might* happen, then burden it up with preventive measures.

What we should be doing is looking at what *actually happens*, and then analyz

They call it "involuntary manslaughter" and the perpetrators can be imprisoned for life in some circumstances.

"Involuntary manslaughter" is a pretty useless law. It has virtually no deterrent effect (either you're aware that what you're doing is dangerous and don't care, or you think it's perfectly safe) and it only serves to further punish people suffering extreme trauma and guilt complexes after seeing themselves cause someone else's death. Prevention is far, far better than cure.

i agree, i don't care about regulating hauling, i just want to see law enforcement crack down on shoddy roof rack and bungie cord arrangements. it's not industrious, it's cheap and dangerous to the rest of us. i don't care if the person is hauling it themselves, they are haulers from craigslist, or whatever: pull them over, fine them, then make them pay to get a professional to pick up their crap on the side of the highway an deliver it, right there and then

Never underestimate the power of cords and ropes to keep things in place. I was always a little dubious of bungee cords due to the stretch factor, but tighten them enough to start with, and they are extremely effective.

It's refreshing to see people starting to challenge the notion that naturally a government can regulate whatever it wants. Calling it out when nonsensical - putting the burden of proof of necessity/wisdom on those in power - that's simply awesome.

It's refreshing to see people starting to challenge the notion that naturally a government can regulate whatever it wants. Calling it out when nonsensical - putting the burden of proof of necessity/wisdom on those in power - that's simply awesome.

your poor straw man just can't get a break, you've really got him on the ropes

Grrr... damn government, trying to regulate our markets and reduce the burden of due dilligence on the individual customer. What do they think they're doing, saving us time? With all this unemployment, they should be making us spend more time checking up on potential suppliers, so that we have less time to dedicate to work and the jobs can be shared out more equally.

That's an interesting angle... "regulation is good because the emptor doesn't have to caveat".

It infantilizes people, especially in this day & age of easily available information, and the presence of free-market alternatives like UL, ISO, etc. Its trustworthiness is a lie, since it provides no proof that it hits any minimum of the cost/benefit curves of its mandates, and bears zero liability for its mistakes.

amateur truck loaders are going to put small loads in big trailers without proper securing, the loads will slide all around the floor of the trailer and impact the sides of the trailer with great force, enough to overturn the trailer on a sharp curve or even puncture the side of the trailer or pop the back doors open with the subsequent ejection of the load into the direct path of motorists. Modern plastic pallets are a big improvement in many ways but they slide like teflon in the back of a trailer.

And garage, beef, mutton, RSVP, et al are French words (et al is Latin), except when they're so commonly used in English that they become English. Burro is one of those words, although a case can be made for calling it Spanglish, since it's only commonly used in the southwest.

"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscio

Of course most people are idiots when it comes to packing a truck - every time I've been called to 'help move' I've showed up to a 16' U-Haul loaded with bicycles, exercise machines, etc, the thing is full of random crap... and then I go inside and there's still the dresser, bed, other furniture, boxes of books/dishes, etc - all the nice 'boxy' stuff that *should* have gone in first so the bikes and the like could go on top or around it all. Then I'm 'taking charge' and telling them to get everything *out* of the truck, and packing stuff into it so that it'll all actually fit.

Note that the law only prohibits this kind of thing when it's done for money. Which makes no sense if your rationale is valid, because hauling hazardous cargo is just as dangerous regardless of whether it's done by some guy that I've hired for $20, or my friend Joey who happens to have a pickup.

Exactly. So then, why is there a separate law criminalizing something the moment it becomes a commercial activity, if the actual dangers involved in that activity are already regulated by universally applicable laws?

Yes, this is less convenient, but the loss of convenience is incurred by the customer, who made the voluntary choice to go with the unregistered unlicensed option. They always had the choice of hiring a licensed mover instead.

but the loss of convenience is incurred by the customer, who made the voluntary choice to go with the unregistered unlicensed option.

No, the loss of convenience is also incurred by the following car that is damaged by the junk falling out of the pickup.

This is a very different situation from Uber, since there are no "medallions" or other market limiting restrictions. Just a reasonable demand for proof of insurance. Since Burro claims they already have the insurance, this is not an onerous demand in the least.

One reason they demand proof of commercial insurance is an obvious one. What happens if they decide to help move, and some glitch on their part strapping down a motorcycle causes it to fall over, then smack the sides of the truck, destroying the other stuff inside?

With most trucking places, you file a claim, call it done. Without insurance, you have to go to court, and may not even get a chance at scoring damages.

There are also commercial licenses in Texas for truck driving. Using a service that doesn't use CDLs may be cheaper... but it is against the law.

The last time I moved, the insurance included with my move was 60 cents per pound - for any coverage beyond that, I had to purchase supplemental coverage. So if they drop your 50 pound $1000 TV, they'll pay you $30.

That's exactly the reason you only give your stuff to a licensed or registered company or person.
Would he make a mistake or get into an accident you know you will get your money back.
But it is a trade off, if the unregistered transporter is way cheaper you might consider absorbing the risk yourself.

You have to take them to court just like no different than suing a person.

This is not really true, in some circumstances such as car lemon laws, the vendor will lose their business license if they defraud the customer. This gives the customer a lot of leverage in this situation. A person has no business license and so the state can't threaten to take it away.

The question you ask implies you don't live in a nice or fair world.
I am pretty happy where I live, most of the time our legal system works for the innocent.
If there are too many failures of the legal system we vote in a different legislature.

No we don't believe a first past the post and/or two party system is democratic, our present parliament represents some 11 parties plus 5 independents and they range from the left and right wingnuts to very serious people.

I didn't. In addition, while being Russian myself, I do not see anything specifically Russian or American about the different ways of thinking exposed here. And yet what he says is valid. You should have a choice to say "it's my problem if my stuff is damaged or the driver disappears with it." And the danger of goods falling out etc., while real in some cases, is just an excuse for a government money grab here, because it's applied generally and does not exclude e.g. small items moved inside passenger cars.

Wow. Could that statement have been any more racist? People like you act like the person looking to exchange an honest days work to feed themselves and their families are Al Qaeda terrorists looking to kill you and your family. Get some perspective! Yes, the immigration system is broken but, they're not bad people (most of the time).

The people, not all Mexican, standing outside Home Depot, etc are just looking to make a living. If you hire them, you know what you are getting: uninsured, likely unsk

I suspect the real thinking behind this is subtler than you give them credit for. Burro (like Uber before them, and like YouTube before them) is going for the "dumb pipe" defense: "we're not a company, we just facilitate trade between individuals and other individuals/small businesses". Getting all the individual "casual hauliers" (for want of a better term) to register isn't good for the state or good for the hauliers, and by extension it isn't good for the public. I think what Texas are trying to do is ma